If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But as Chlod mentioned earlier in the thread, you don't see a lot of rich upperclass women chasing after rugged construction workers. If it's merely a matter of financial standing, or more of a question of inherit sub-cultural differences, is hard to say. But it doesn't seem to be a problem the other way around. That is, a rich upperclass man marrying an attractive, young lady working at the cash register.

As Agnes said back in post #211, women are by nature hypergamous. I’ve never seriously contested this but there are only a certain number of rich men available so the majority of working-class women will eventually have to settle for less.

TBH, I don't really care who upper-class women go for but it's true that not many of them marry poor men. They of course mate with the rich ones like themselves, many of whom have been made soft by their easy lives, and then they fantasise about the construction workers

And what would that reason be, if not a higher focus on materialism in women's evaluation of male attractiveness?

I said that there’s a reason for ‘sexiness inequality’ (as the article puts it) based solely on the fact that nature knows best. In most species the male will hunt, and sometimes even fight, for a female partner whilst the females just more or less let them get on with it in the knowledge that there will always be other aspirants. If ‘sexiness equality’ was the rule then the females would also be fighting over the males and the latter, once again, would go soft.

Ultimately, however, we’re talking about human behaviour and there's neither a set pattern for women as a group nor as individuals. They can be very fickle creatures and I’m not sure that a good 80% of them even know themselves what they want Analysing the stats is a waste of time. The only statistical law that holds true, in an approximate kind of way, is the law of averages because the more females you frequent the greater will be your chances of success.

Speaking for myself, I’d just give this Gini a good sh*g and worry about her coefficient later!

I'm sure the approximately one quarter of males who unwillingly grow old as single and childless do, though.

Originally Posted by SaxonPagan

[...] but it's true that not many of them marry poor men. They of course mate with the rich ones like themselves, many of whom have been made soft by their easy lives, and then they fantasise about the construction workers

For every woman marrying up the socio-economic latter, there is one less woman within reach for the men on the latter below. As a rule, women do not marry down. This wasn't much of an issue in past societies, where the vast majority of men had a higher financial standing than the vast majority of women. But in modern society, it is just one more factor which contributes to the difficulty of men and women finding satisfactory partners.

Originally Posted by SaxonPagan

I said that there’s a reason for ‘sexiness inequality’ (as the article puts it) based solely on the fact that nature knows best. In most species the male will hunt, and sometimes even fight, for a female partner whilst the females just more or less let them get on with it in the knowledge that there will always be other aspirants. If ‘sexiness equality’ was the rule then the females would also be fighting over the males and the latter, once again, would go soft.

Our natural state left the front seat a long time ago to the favor of systems and mechanisms designed by humans. We could have argued how 'nature knows best' before the advent of social welfare, the pill, women's suffrage and third wave feminism.

Originally Posted by SaxonPagan

Ultimately, however, we’re talking about human behaviour and there's neither a set pattern for women as a group nor as individuals. They can be very fickle creatures and I’m not sure that a good 80% of them even know themselves what they want

Sure, these things aren't 100% set in stone, but there are some traits which can be considered more or less universally desirable. Tall stature, a heavy wallet, 'Chad' facial characteristics, well-developed muscles, confidence, intelligence, sociability, and social status. Got all of them, and you can expect any single, young woman to give you a chance. Got none of them, and you can expect to never even be considered.

Originally Posted by SaxonPagan

Analysing the stats is a waste of time. The only statistical law that holds true, in an approximate kind of way, is the law of averages because the more females you frequent the greater will be your chances of success.

Which is why I think bringing up such statistics is important. A young man might gather up the courage and motivation to approach five women, and mistakenly think he has absolutely no value as a potential mate if none of them result in a romantic relationship. But knowing how badly the odds are stacked against his favor from the start, would make him view such defeats more realistically and less crushing. Most people don't get depressed or discouraged if they don't win in the lottery, even after several years playing. But losing a game of heads-and-tails five, ten times in a row, might just make someone think they should give up.

A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

Žoreišar, I'll write a fuller reply when I have the time but this bit caught my eye ...

Tall stature, a heavy wallet, 'Chad' facial characteristics, well-developed muscles, confidence, intelligence, sociability, and social status. Got all of them, and you can expect any single, young woman to give you a chance. Got none of them, and you can expect to never even be considered.

If you have NONE of the above then you don't deserve to be considered, and would never have been considered by any generation of women in the past either!

Even if this were the case, given the amount of posts stating that women constantly cheat, you're bound to find a woman even if one of the 20 percent guys already beat you to it.

No-one says that, not in this thread or on this forum. That's not what hypergamy means. And if women are going to cheat, they won't do it with everyone of course, they need a motive too - they will tend to upgrade themselves rather than downgrade. Meaning: they're not going to cheat with incels, it's highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by SaxonPagan

This is just one of many contradictions in a silly theory invented by a group of dysfunctional, 30-something virgins on the Internet.

There's no contradiction. Bernhard was either cracking a joke, misread something or didn't know what hypergamy means. And incels are mostly people in their teens, twenties. If you're gonna make broad, sweeping statements, base them on something other than perpetual anger and a boastful kind of ignorance. This isn't even an incel theory, let alone a theory of "thirty year old" incels. But please, continue to give us these pearls of wisdom, not hindered by any kind of knowledge.

It's such an idiotic post too, nothing of what you said made sense, all of it it is written just to spite the people you've debated in this thread - that's why you made your post - what's your age again? Are you ever able to bite your lip? Do you possess any selfcontrol at all?

The thing with discussing incels is that it will always naturally attract a) people (from all age-groups) with well-meant but impertinent advice who do not grasp the enormity and seriousness of the situation (yet) and think there's some easy solution to this problem (there isn't, and if there was, incels would've tried it already) and, the real problem, b) a certain group of unhinged, frustrated and bitter people - whether it's here (and I do mean you, SP, no-one else fits the bill) or on in the comment sections on Youtube. It's a reoccuring phenomenon, if one pays any attention to this subject at all it becomes immediately apparent. I've seen incels asking themselves the same question more than once too - "Why do we attract these weirdos? Why do they go out of their way to attack us?". This second group leaves super angry, often incoherent, rambling comments. The kind of comment which makes you cock your head. What drives these crazies is very puzzling - I don't pretend to know the answer - but it's obvious the reason for it is deep-seated, why do it otherwise? A rather serious psychological issue could be the root cause.

Like these people, you don't know when to stop with your angry rants, SP. And like them you somehow feel threatened by "incels" on a personal level. Do you recognise yourself in incels, is that it? Is this some kind of toxic symbiosis of hate and self-hate? Or can't you understand that anyone would not be like you and desire the same things you do (such as hookups) or perhaps that they come from different, more socially conservative backgrounds and hence don't share your needs - and that's also threatening somehow? Or is it perhaps that people do not approve of your own life choices while you need the approval and praise of other people as reassurance? You project your own feelings on to others quite often though, that much is certain I'm not sure what drives your rage or that of anyone who feels so incredibly and specifically infuriated by the subject matter of incels, but it's bewildering and intolerable - above all it adds nothing to the debate - and it ends here.

Think about what you're doing and continue to do: where's your rational reason for, let's say, the last (now deleted) post you made in this thread? It's just a bunch of cringeworthy, vile attacks and unsubstantiated remarks and insights.

Statistics are meaningless, such as your "one quarter of males who unwillingly grow old as single and childless".

Statistics and facts be damned, feelings are what matter now. That's infantilisation in full swing right there. We're all depending on your intuition now? Because who needs reality to base their personal views on, right?

This is where the political left, with all its flaws, is more honest than us and will always attract more women.

What the hell?

Absolutely not. The left is hardly honest about anything and being a leftist doesn't equal more women. But why are you defending a bunch of degenerates now? Are you revealing your true colors? You firmly side with progressives/the left on this subject and many other ethical issues at any rate. And like them, you attack reason and statistics. Or are you just being intensely frustrated about something, something we don't know?

But I'll digress, the left at least mentions its opponents by name and doesn't make these little bitchy, insulting comments about them without naming their names, hiding behind generalisations such as "closet homos" and "30-something virgins'. It's really dishonorable SP and I'm quite disappointed with you.

Tradition anchors our experience of time in memory and projects it into the future through hope.  Rein Staal

After having read and posted in this thread one can come to several conclusions. Incels are a very small minority mainly gaining what little recognition they have from the internet. They are not a good thing for Preservation, Nationalism, or Traditionalism as they seem to have trouble finding a partner. They seem to try and spread hate towards women and normal men. These Incels really belong in the leftist camp where they can spread into people of that mindset and really do at least some good for society at large.

Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

There are incels who hate women (normal men less so - chads on the other hand... maybe) - but that doesn't put them necessarily in the leftist camp and most certainly don't hate traditional women - and that would be theoretically - in practice quasi all of the left and the mainstream media hate incels. They've made the word their go to slur too. Because they don't care about men's issues, amongst other reasons. And because incels are a product and unwanted child of feminism - and incels are anti-feminist. They're far easier to recruit for the right than the left, politically minded full on incels have no love for the left, and that makes sense. The more the manosphere is adopted by the far right, and the manosphere by common men - the better. I'm glad if incels too take an interest in ethnonationalism, we stand little to lose from it. The media already say incels = far right. And we can't be too picky given our own small numbers, wherever mass support is coming from, it's good - as long as it isn't from pedos.

The group of incels who hangs around in incel spaces is no doubt small, but then there are so many other single men who probably haven't even heard of incels, and that group is large - manosphere thought in general is gaining groud rapidly.

Originally Posted by SpearBrave

They are not a good thing for Preservation, Nationalism, or Traditionalism as they seem to have trouble finding a partner.

Why does that make them unsuitable though? You could say not having children is a problem (yet one can be childless and subscribe to any ideology), but not having/finding a partner is quite irrelevant. Being single makes men more likely to fight harder and better in war time too - if SHTF in a few years or a decade from now, it's a bonus.

Tradition anchors our experience of time in memory and projects it into the future through hope.  Rein Staal

There are incels who hate women (normal men less so - chads on the other hand... maybe) - but that doesn't put them necessarily in the leftist camp and most certainly don't hate traditional women - and that would be theoretically - in practice quasi all of the left and the mainstream media hate incels. They've made the word their go to slur too. Because they don't care about men's issues, amongst other reasons. And because incels are a product and unwanted child of feminism - and incels are anti-feminist. They're far easier to recruit for the right than the left, politically minded full on incels have no love for the left, and that makes sense. The more the manosphere is adopted by the far right, and the manosphere by common men - the better. I'm glad if incels too take an interest in ethnonationalism, we stand little to lose from it. The media already say incels = far right. And we can't be too picky given our own small numbers, wherever mass support is coming from, it's good - as long as it isn't from pedos.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I said they belong in the leftist camp that way they can do more damage to that side of the spectrum. Who cares how they feel or what their views are they are toxic.

The group of incels who hangs around in incel spaces is no doubt small, but then there are so many other single men who probably haven't even heard of incels, and that group is large - manosphere thought in general is gaining groud rapidly.

It's gaining ground because of their presence on the internet. These are unhappy dudes that can't get laid, so as I stated in another thread "
misery loves company ". These people should be shunned and treated as if they have a disease, f*ck their feelings they don't belong in a healthy society.

Why does that make them unsuitable though? You could say not having children is a problem (yet one can be childless and subscribe to any ideology), but not having/finding a partner is quite irrelevant. Being single makes men more likely to fight harder and better in war time too - if SHTF in a few years or a decade from now, it's a bonus.

They go against nature of man and woman, hence against the traditional male role.

Most will fight harder defending home and hearth, not for a ideology, hence why the US tricks it's soldiers into fighting to protect "freedom" and they convince the young men that America somehow equals this "freedom" so by defending "freedom" they are defending America. Then there are a few men who just love to fight for any reason or cause, combat gives them a hardon and they like it. I really would not say a single man would fight harder than married man, it might be the married guy will fight better to get home to see his wife and kids. The point is very hard to make why one person is a tough fighter and another is not, could be some just have the blood lust, might be a good topic for another thread.

Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.